Enoch is the second on the list of faithful. Can we determine a plausible hermeneutic that explains Enoch's 'pleasing God' on the assumption that our hermeneutic guides our understanding which controls our behavior.

Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death;
and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his
translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

From the scriptures that were available to him, what would lead him to 'walk with God'? What does that mean? And how would he know how to please God from the scriptures he had available, is there evidence of specifically how he pleased God?

I'm a little busy to post any kind of answer, but in answer to some of your questions I would refer you to roughly the first hundred pages of the second book/part of Patrick Fairbairn's Typology of Scripture.
–
zpletanJun 9 '12 at 18:10

@zpletan Thank you for this reference. I have just read through much of his first book. He gives a great review of allegorical systems of the past and why they failed. Then he proposes his own. This is a great first step toward reproducing the hermeneutic of the apostles. He makes one glaring error. He says that nothing evil in the OT can be a NT type. Yet the serpent is one of the types referenced in the NT itself. But had I run across this book 10 years ago I may have been satisfied enough to not have studied types on my own. I am looking forward to reading it with a great deal more care.
–
Bob JonesJun 9 '12 at 21:00

You'll have to give me a reference if the serpent is something other than the one referenced in John 3, which was neither evil nor sinful. Further, Fairbairn does not say that nothing evil can be typical, but that it cannot typify a good that God introduces (p. 138). He states that such an evil can typify the evil that opposes the good (p. 142). In any case, I'm glad you're finding it profitable—read always with care, but hold fast to what is good.
–
zpletanJun 10 '12 at 4:52

The serpent of the garden sure looks evil. Mt 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. Mt 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Lu 3:7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Re 12:15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. Re 20:2 ...
–
Bob JonesJun 10 '12 at 12:58

God created serpents very good. In these passages, they are being used as symbols of evil. In any case, I think both of us are straying from the topic at hand.
–
zpletanJun 10 '12 at 14:04

2 Answers
2

Enock's faith is similar to Abel's. Enock had no more scripture than Abel had. That is beyond the light of nature, they only had the words of Adam and Eve. We might overlook how powerful that scripture was. Fresh after creation and the fall, and living with the very same people who originally fellowshipped with God, the evincing nature of their words would strike faith like a match to any heart open to God. Hearing directly from Eve God's promise of salvation in 'crushing' the Devil's head, seems enough to explain primative, yet lively faith.

But more to the point of Enock's 'walk with God', I assume the idea can be traced to this:

8Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the
LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of
the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the
trees of the garden. 9But the LORD God called to the
man, “Where are you?” (Genesis 3:8-9)

From these verses it could be argued that God used to fellowship with Adam and Eve, appearing to them in the garden in some shape, possibly even in human form, as they heard him 'walking'. Possibly God the Son was visiting them and already manifesting an image of His future form? In any case, whatever form this was, it seems that Adam and Eve would then 'walk with God'. When we look for our friends and do not find them where they usually are, we say 'Where are you?' This, therefore, indicates 'walking with God' was fellowshipping with Him and enjoying His presence.

So it would seem to me that Enock had a very lively faith by beleiving in the promise of salvation and that was enough for Enock to experience God's presence. That is, Enock sensed God in his life and enjoyed God very much. God was so pleased with Enock by his unusual faith that He took Him. So Enock not only stands as an oustanding example of faith, but represents the first idea that salvation inlcudes a physical ressurection of the material body, by that same faith. Enocks faith was like a lightenng bolt from heaven.

In this interpretation I assume fellowship is related to enjoyment, and enjoyment is integral with love. Enock's faith and love are therefore how he 'specifically pleased God'.

So both Abel and Enoch, lived in accordance with a faith based in the knowledge of the history they had. However we may interpret their understanding of that history is not as important as the fact that they sought a closer relationship with God, believing it was possible from elements contained in the 'scripture' they had (oral or written).

We know we are reading the history of Abel and Enoch correctly having come to the same conclusion as the author of Hebrews:

Heb 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he
that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a
rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

And we are one step closer to reproducing the hermeneutic of the apostles.